On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Eli Bendersky <eli...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> It would be nice to call it something else than "printf-style >> formatting". While it is certainly modelled on printf(), knowledge of C >> or printf is not required to understand %-style formatting, nor even to >> appreciate it. > > > +1. The section is already titled "old string formatting operations" so if > this name is acceptable it should be reused. If it's not, it should then be > consistently changed everywhere.
I deliberately chose printf-style as being value neutral (whereas old-style vs new-style carries a heavier recommendation that you should be using the new one). Sure you don't need to know printf to understand it, but it needs *some* kind of name, and "printf-style" acknowledges its roots. Another value-neutral term is "mod-style", which describes how it is invoked (and I believe we do use that in a few places already). I didn't actually expect that paragraph to be incorporated wholesale into the docs - it was intended as a discussion starter, not a finished product. Aside from the last two sentences, the other big problem with it is that print-style formatting *does* support formatting arbitrary objects, they're just forced to go through type coercions whereas .format() allows objects to define their own formatting specifiers (such as datetime with strftime strings). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
